Except for really small-wheeled bikes like Moultons,
chainrings over 52 teeth in the vintage era (say, pre
1985) appear to be a peculiarly American preference.
Any historical evidence to give or take credibility
for this idea?
David Feldman
Vancouver, WA
> Sheldon Brown and I variously wrote:
> >
> >>Your Rochet, being a production bike, did not
> offer the gear range
> >>you'd find on a top-drawer cyclotouring machine.
> Most of the
> >>equipment was an odd adaptation of racing gear,
> which you wouldn't
> >>find on a well-spec'd Herse, Singer or Routens. A
> typical Herse
> >>triple from the 1950s is 48-40-32.
> >
> >Yes, but these bikes, I would expect to be equipped
> with a
> >chainstay-mounted Cyclo helical derailer, the kind
> that used a
> >screen door spring, not a self-contained, dropout
> mounted unit.
>
> Of course, the good bikes featured derailleurs able
> to shift wide
> ranges, whether Cyclo (90%), or the less-common
> Nivex, Huret and
> Spirax. A true cyclotouring bike wouldn't have used
> a racing
> derailleur back then. And the racing derailleur
> probably is why the
> gearing had to be limited on your Rochet. A lot of
> production bike
> shops tried to turn out "cyclotouring" bikes by
> adapting racing bike
> designs. The true "constructeurs" didn't worry too
> much, as these
> half-hearted attempts were no competition for their
> custom-built
> machines. I am sure they were a lot cheaper, though!
>
> There also were true production cyclotouring bikes,
> made by RPF
> (later CDF) and others. These were as functional as
> a Singer or
> Herse, but didn't feature the same quality or light
> weight. But then
> as now, most cyclists were fascinated by racing, so
> it was easier to
> sell a bike with famous, albeit less suitable
> components.
>
> >>The 48/30 is not unusual at all for a French
> cyclotouring bike. On
> >>doubles, the big ring usually was 48 or 46, the
> small one 32 or 30,
> >>rarely 28. Still a good choice today. (See the
> article in VBQ vol.
> >>1. No. 1)
> >
> >That's the only one I ever saw. The (cottered)
> Rosa crank had a
> >large diameter (maybe 2") thread at its base, and
> the big ring
> >threaded onto the crank much as a freewheel threads
> onto a hub. The
> >30 chainring bolted to the 48.
>
> Most bikes after the war used Stronglight 49D alloy
> arms with TA
> rings. Sometimes, you'd find the Duprat hollow steel
> cranks, or the
> cottered Maniplume alloy ones. But the better bikes
> were 95%
> Stronglight, except Herse with his own cranks. The
> Rosa/Cyclo rings
> were cool in the 1930s. By 1960, the steel ones were
> found on cheaper
> bikes only.
>
> >
> >I agree that it was a good setup. I found the low
> pretty adequate,
> >but the 48/14 top gear didn't satisfy me so I soon
> converted it to
> >10 speed, later to 30, and at present this bike has
> a 63-speed rig
> >http://sheldonbrown.org/otb.html
>
> You are faster than I am! For me, 48-14 is perfectly
> adequate for
> non-racing, even on the tandem with smaller 650B
> wheels.
>
> Hugo Koblet won the Tour in 1951 with a 50-14 (see
> the recent issue
> of VBQ). But he was faster than both of us, I
> suspect. (Maybe, if
> Coppi only had had a 50-13, he'd have won...)
>
> In fact, big gears were available even back then: Jo
> Routens used a
> 52-13 (6-speed freewheel!) on his tandem in
> Paris-Brest-Paris 1948!
> Big gears may be a recent fashion (at least within
> the CR timeline),
> but they have been available for a long time.
>
> --
> Jan Heine, Seattle
> Editor/Publisher
> Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
> http://www.mindspring.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/